The Beltway media villagers’ latest man-crush: Ted ‘Calgary’ Cruz

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this year the Beltway media was infatuated with the village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul, over his incoherent filibuster on drones. A series of "missteps" since then, including his recent defense of his Neo-Confederate aid Jack Hunter aka the "Southern Avenger" who was forced to resign, Sen. Rand Paul defends aide with Confederate views – USA Today, has quieted speculation among the villagers over his 2016 prospects for the GOP nomination.

Next we were treated to to the Beltway media villagers declaring Sen. Marco "big gulp" Rubio the "Republican Savior." Marco Rubio, Republican Savior | TIME.com. Pravda on the Potomac, the Washington Post, wrote numerous articles and opinions praising the man-child from Florida for his role in the "Gang of Eight" in the Senate for crafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which he was supposed to be able to sell to his Tea Party cohorts in the House. The Senate bill was immediately declared dead on arrival in the House by said Tea Party cohorts. Oops! Sen. Rubio's 2016 presidential ambitions are now being eulogized as the "main political fatality" of the immigration reform fight. “The End of Marco Rubio.

Mccarthy-cruz-cropped-proto-custom_28
So now the Beltway media villagers, who are always speculating about presidential elections because it beats actually working, have annointed a new 2016 GOP presidential contender.

Leave it to the gossip rag "Tiger Beat on the Potomac" aka POLITICO, to settle upon the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, Sen. Ted "Calgary" Cruz.

Rich Yeselson wrote this man-crush opinion last week. Ted Cruz is a legitimate 2016 threat – Politico:

Cruz is sometimes dismissed as an extremist and — an even worse sin in
“this town” — as an unpleasant fellow who annoys his distinguished,
disinterested fellow solons of the Senate. But, if anything, his
distinctive strengths as a representative of the modern Republican Party
may be understated.

* * *

More importantly, Cruz is arguably the most compelling conservative
political activist/intellectual since William F. Buckley in his heyday
at the National Review and on the public affairs show “Firing Line.”

I suppose in the Tea-Publican alternate reality universe, it's always good to be compared to an unreprentant white supremacist. “The National Review,” Racist Writing, and the Legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr. – William Hoagland (Buckley’s famous 2004 apology for having once held racially regressive positions was no apology at all).

Ted "Calgary" Cruz has positioned himself as the anti-Rubio Cuban-American. He is opposed to any pathway to citizenship in the immigration reform bill because damnit!, immigration to America is for Cubans who can make it to our shores with a Castro Express Card — "don't leave home without it." Ask yourself, what if Mexico had a communist dictator? Would Mexicans also get an Express Card? Hmmm.

In an interview that aired on Sunday, A right-wing mole at ABC News, Jonathan Karl, asked Cruz if a
majority of Americans were wrong to support a path to citizenship for
the 11 million undocumented immigrations in the United States. Ted Cruz: A Path to Citizenship Is 'Profoundly Unfair':

"There is no stronger advocate of legal immigration in the U.S.
Senate than I am," Cruz insisted. "What I'm saying is if you want to fix
the problem, you've got to focus where there is agreement. The most
divisive element of the Gang of Eight bill is that it grants amnesty, it
grants a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally."

"I think a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally is
profoundly unfair to the millions of the legal immigrants who followed
the rules," he continued. "I do not believe the House of Representatives
will pass a path to citizenship. And I think the White House knows
that."

Cruz, who was visiting Iowa at the time, also told Karl that he
considered himself a U.S. citizen by birth and eligible to run for
president — even though he was born in Canada — because his mother was
a U.S. citizen.

"She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen," he explained. "I’m not going to engage in a legal debate. The facts are clear."

Wait, say what now? Why does this sound so familiar? Wait, it will come to me. I got it! This is exactly the opposite of what the Birthers in the Tea Party have said about Barack Obama all these years as a means to delegitimize his presidency. His mother Ann Dunham was an American citizen from the hearltand of America in Kansas. Did any of these Birther teabaggers ever once say "She’s a U.S. citizen, so he's a U.S. citizen"? I think not. And unlike "Calgary," Barack Obama actually was born in the U.S. in Hawaii. Ted Cruz in 2016: He's His Own Worst Birther | New Republic.

So who will the Beltway media villagers swoon over next?

I understand that right-wing gun nut and Vietnam War draft dodger Ted Nugent is thinking about running for president, and Islamophobic bigot Rep. Peter King is considering a run for president. The wild-eyed radicals at Red State insist that Donald Trump Is Really Running For President in 2016.

These "biggest losers" can join the perennial mentions, like Mike HuckaJesus (Huckabee), Rick "man on dog" Santorum, and Governor Goodhair Rick Perry, all from the Christian Domionist cult. Herman Cain ("9-9-9"!) might give it another go if his wife has forgiven him. And of course, there is always the shameless reality TV show self-promoter of the twitterverse, the "Quitta from Wasilla," Sarah Palin.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey can't possibly win in a GOP clown car primary like this. Just hang out with "the boss" on the Jersey Shore at Asbury Park, Gov — enjoy life, you don't need this craziness.

Can't we all just agree that the GOP has the craziest, scariest, most profoundly unqualified candidates for the presidency in history?

6 responses to “The Beltway media villagers’ latest man-crush: Ted ‘Calgary’ Cruz

  1. Rich Yeselson

    I also called Cruz a demagogic anti-communist, like Joe McCarthy. Plenty of signposts in this article that I didn’t agree with Cruz, long before the last graf. Of course the guy who wrote the post above didn’t bother to read more than a couple of hundred words. Nor did he have the grace to colorectal his post, and write, “my bad.”

  2. Rich Yeselson

    Right–that’s the point: I **do** respect him as any liberal or leftist should because he is a dangerous and formidable adversary. I want people to understand that he’s a very talented and smart man. I don’t want leftists to laugh at him–I want them to respect him enough to fight him. Being smug is not an option–the bad guys have skills and smarts too.

    I also said he supports the right to bear arms with more enthusiasm than Rambo–does that sound like praise? And I completely described the conservative world view in a way that indicated I don’t support it in the least–unless you think that noting conservative religious “anxiety” about gender norms (a phrase conservatives don’t even use) is a form of support.

  3. Well, I guess the Atlantic, Salon, and the Daily Beast are familiar with your political bent, which I am not.

    Sentences like these seem to convey true respect:

    “Cruz is arguably the most compelling conservative political activist/intellectual since William F. Buckley…”

    “The fact that he was a champion debater at Princeton, and later, as Texas solicitor general and in private practice, a very skilled appellate lawyer who has argued eight cases before the Supreme Court, merely ratifies a legitimately earned expertise.”

    “…he’s got the perfect rhetorical combination of having a coherent worldview that he can transpose for voters into demotic, accessible language.”

    Perhaps if you had actually used the word lunatic to describe Cruz, those of us not familiar with your writing would have gotten the picture.

  4. Rich Yeselson

    No it didn’t, and nobody else read it that way! Not the Atlantic , Salon, the Daily Beast. That’s ridiculous. I said he’s a very talented right wing lunatic who, because of his talent, and his agreement with the base of the party, had a chance to be nominated.

    To say he’s talented is not to agree with him, and I didn’t. Nor do conservatives think I agree with him or with them.

  5. movingazforward

    A crazy, scary, unelectable Republican presidential candidate? Never saw this coming!

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rafael-cruz-declares-son-ted-cruz-anointed-

    I don’t think they really care about winning a presidential election again; this is just a useful distraction while they wreak havoc at the state houses.

  6. Rich Yeselson

    Hey AZBLUEMEANIE,

    Did you actually read my whole essay, or just the part at the beginning which you quoted? Tea Party? LOL! I said Cruz and the GOP were appalling–but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a strong candidate for the nomination. In fact, that’s exactly **why** he’s a strong candidate for the nomination–because he has the same combination of libertarianism and the ultra-religious anxiety about gender norms as the base of his party. In fact, you missed my own comparison of Cruz and Joe McCarthy Keep reading, don’t be so damn lazy! You provide an incredible disservice to your own readers when you can’t properly summarize somebody else’s argument.

    And it’s also intellectually dishonest–for shame.